- Thread starter
- #41
Same here.I was once a proponent of your side of the argument and found it to be unsupportable.
Once one applies logic, analytical thought, scientific acid tests that have survived centuries (i.e. repeatability and falsifiability), and the history of Malthusian declinism and all its modern permutations, the anthropogenic global warming myth comes apart like a cheap suit.
I too was once an intellectually lazy believer in AGW. As a grad student I had many conversations with other like-minded, liberal leaning friends - we all thought we were destroying the planet and something must be done.
As an associate professsor I had the privilege of meeting a wide array of actual experts in the field of physics, geology, meteorology etc., and what I discovered is that there was far less uniformity regarding AGW than I had been led to believe during my days as a student, and one highly regarded and influrential professor in particular spent about an hour breaking down the debate into simple points of reason, and historical scientific context - something I had never been privy to before. I left that meeting with a far more willing mind to explore this topic for myself. (That professor has since gone on to national attention and I say good for him!)
Since having my eyes opened to the possibility the AGW premise was, and had always been, deeply flawed and politically motivated, I further explored the details of global warming in even greater detail.
This time has led me to the simple conclusion that humankind's influence on the global climate as it pertains to CO2 is minimal - far less than naturally occurring sources. Also, CO2 is not a poison - it is of great benefit to the planet. Earth temperatures have fluctuated throughout history, and were significantly warmer as recently as 70 years ago. Glaciers have retreated and reformed countless times. And lastly - there is immense pressure on universities to subscribe to the AGW theory due to the vast amounts of funding attached to AGW - that funding has corrupted the actual science.
AGW has become a religion - a leap of faith, and those within academia who denounce it, are called out as heritics.
The good news is common sense has started to return to this discussion, and more and more people are looking into the actual science behind the issue.
Examples such as Chris, Old Rocks, etc. are becoming the minority.